Ron Paul can’t bring himself to vote for resolution expressing sympathy for Burma

posted at 12:39 pm on May 16, 2008 by Allahpundit

A stirring stand on principle by a man who’s never blanched at being the lone “no” vote when meaningless feelgood resolutions come to the floor — unless, of course, they involve congratulating football teams.

Here’s a quick look at some members of the elite group that has somehow managed to pry an “aye” from Dr. No in House votes on other do-nothing resolutions considered this year…

• The University of Kansas football team for “winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl and having the most successful year in program history”

• The New York Giants for “winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable post-season runs in professional sports history”

• The Louisiana State University football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series national championship game

It’s all in keeping with our constitutional scheme per the “Rock Chalk, Jayhawk” Clause in Article I. In his defense, though, a guy paranoid enough to float the idea of a new Gulf of Tonkin in the well of the House may have special reasons for opposing this latest resolution. Is the neocon annexation of Burma imminent? Assume nothing, my friends.

Incidentally, today’s the one-year anniversary of America’s Greatest Patriot telling Giuliani at the debate that “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” The new tape from Osama, whom we’re told we should always listen carefully to, would suggest otherwise, although I have a hunch that Dr. Paul won’t have much difficulty assimilating this particular grievance into his unified theory of Why They Really Hate Us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ron who?

pilamaye on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM

It’s all in keeping with our constitutional scheme per the “Rock Chalk, Jayhawk” Clause in Article I.

Genius.

Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Principle.

Akzed on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Maybe he’s afraid Burma will become the 51st state.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Tens of thousands of deaths due to the malfeasance of a military dictatorship is one thing, but by God man, football is football.

Vote Sauron 08 on May 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Good for him. What good do these resolutions do, anyway?

How about spending time on real problems.

pseudonominus on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

What a slap in the face to the Rangoon U varsity football team!

bernzright777 on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Maybe he’s afraid Burma will become the 51st state.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Or, in Obamath, the 58th state.

ReubenJCogburn on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Maybe he’s afraid Burma will become the 51st state.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM

58th state.

right2bright on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

It says a lot about who HE is, but more importantly, it says a lot about the ‘tards who still back him…

I’m assuming the sound of crickets can be heard from the Paul camp right about now. Total freaking idiots. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Gartrip on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM

I’m not a Paul supporter, but I got to give him the nod on this one. He made a political statement, and since it didn’t snub his voter base, a safe one. What if he had made the same statement against a professional Texas football team. He would have alienated his voter base, and appeared an elitist snob. If he had opposed emergency relief then that would have been different, but he didn’t he opposed a waste of time.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Football is nothing more then adventurist wars fought on foreign soil. It is about empire. When the Sooners come down to the Cotton Bowl, and beat the hell out of my Longhorns, it is no wonder we harbor resentment against Oklahoma. Hook-em-horns is a natural consequence of this aggression by Oklahoma on the soverign State of Texas.

Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Maybe he justifies the football resolutions because they don’t involve “foreign entanglements”. Memo to Ron Paul, just because George Washington warned about something in the 18th Century doesn’t mean foreign policy can’t change. Let us know when you join reality.

CP on May 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Smart money says don’t snub football if your running for an office in Texas.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Well, the Burman victims are kind of brown. He can’t risk alienating his base.

Was that too much? I can never tell.

Tanya on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Well said, sir. Its about time somebody said something about the horrendous conditions fans of losing teams have to endure. I blame capitalism. If everyone were socialist, we wouldn’t have to keep score and everyone could feel good just that they were playing.

jimmy the notable on May 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM

And his “yea” votes on resolutions regarding Romanian orphans?

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM

You mean the 58th state.

Darth Executor on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Good for him. What good do these resolutions do, anyway?

pseudonominus on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Not nearly as much as resolutions congratulating football teams. Keep walking, Ronulan.

Darth Executor on May 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM

I’m not a Paul supporter, but I got to give him the nod on this one. He made a political statement, and since it didn’t snub his voter base, a safe one. What if he had made the same statement against a professional Texas football team. He would have alienated his voter base, and appeared an elitist snob. If he had opposed emergency relief then that would have been different, but he didn’t he opposed a waste of time.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM

So … you support him for political cowardice, complete hypocrisy and inconsistency, and blatantly displaying the fact that he apparently has no internal moral compass whatsoever?

Okee dokee.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Memo to Ron Paul, just because George Washington warned about something in the 18th Century doesn’t mean foreign policy can’t change. Let us know when you join reality.

CP on May 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Hey, Washington hated wooden teeth in the late 1700s and his opinion is still valid today.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM

How about spending time on real problems.

pseudonominus on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Right.

Like picking the logo design for your blimp.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM

And his “yea” votes on resolutions regarding Romanian orphans?

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Maybe he missed breakfast this morning, or he had a late night working out that whole transition back to the gold standard. I don’t know. Was it inconsistent? Yes, but that doesn’t change the point that was made, and it’s a point I agree with, even if Rangle had made it.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

A stirring stand on principle by a man who’s never blanched at being the lone “no” vote when meaningless feelgood resolutions come to the floor — unless, of course, they involve congratulating football teams.

Genius. Because everybody knows that resolutions about US football teams equal resolutions about the affairs of foreign countries. /sarc

By the way, they’re both a waste of tax dollars.

Exit question: Why was everybody up in arms about last year’s Turkey resolution but not about this?

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Maybe he’s afraid Burma will become the 51st state.

Not going to happen.
Eastern Oregon will be the 51st state.

ChrisM on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

What a cruel and heartless thing to do.

If he even expresses sympathy for non-Americans a good chunk of his support would dry up.

EJDolbow on May 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

We can definitely debate the point of the resolutions, by my whole point is that he’s no hero of voting against them. He votes yes or no selectively on them. His general rule isn’t “NO” because he thinks they’re a waste of time, he’s voted for several of them.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Or, in Obamath, the 58th state.

ReubenJCogburn on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Beat me to it.

wytammic on May 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Genius. Because everybody knows that resolutions about US football teams equal resolutions about the affairs of foreign countries. /sarc

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Ah, I see. The affairs of foreign countries. Like regarding orphans in Romania? Or condemning attacks in Egypt?

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

So … you support him for political cowardice, complete hypocrisy and inconsistency, and blatantly displaying the fact that he apparently has no internal moral compass whatsoever?

Okee dokee.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Crocodile tears don’t impress me, so I guess I’m not sentimental. If he had opposed aid then I would agree he’s everything you said, but he didn’t.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Out of the three situations:

Football games
Romanian Orphans
Burma

…only the last one could benefit from actions Congress could take rather than wasting time with symbolic resolutions.

MadisonConservative on May 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Eastern Oregon will be the 51st state.

ChrisM on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Followed by Eastern Washington..

bernzright777 on May 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Crocodile tears don’t impress me, so I guess I’m not sentimental. If he had opposed aid then I would agree he’s everything you said, but he didn’t.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Unfortunately that’s not what you said. What you said was:

I got to give him the nod on this one. He made a political statement, and since it didn’t snub his voter base, a safe one. What if he had made the same statement against a professional Texas football team. He would have alienated his voter base, and appeared an elitist snob.

Like I said: you applauded him for pandering to his base while simultaneously acknowledging that he wouldn’t risk such a brave symbolic gesture if it would have alienated his nutty “base.”

What was your point exactly? Other than that you’re a big fan of empty political expediency.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Ah, I see. The affairs of foreign countries. Like regarding orphans in Romania? Or condemning attacks in Egypt?

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

You’re making the Ronulan spin very difficult for them to muster. Be nice. Reality can be unpleasant for them.

In Dr. Nutball’s defense – and its only logical one I can come up with – its pretty likely he just forgot where he was during some of those votes. Maybe his blimp distracted him.

Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM

When a congressman or a senator gets on a plane and goes over there to help out, then I will be impressed, but until then these fake votes of sentiment are distasteful, and that’s how I feel about it. I am glad someone made the point, even it it was in a hyporcritical way.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM

What an assclown.

Btw, your site’s screwed up again.

rightwingprof on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

You’re right. The answer is so simple. He must just really hate Burma…for some reason.

Exit question…Has anybody actually asked him why he voted No?

*crickets*

One more thing…Note the “Incidentally…blah blah blah Ron Paul blah blah blah bombing Iraq for over 10 years blah blah blah…”

AP is trolling in his own blog post.

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Exit question…Has anybody actually asked him why he voted No?

No, because then he might tell us. And once you get that guy going, he just doesn’t shut up. It’s ‘gold standard’ this and ‘neocons’ that. He’s a total buzzkill at parties.

Slublog on May 16, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Eastern Oregon will be the 51st state.

ChrisM on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Only if Vermont doesn’t secede first.

Connie on May 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Exit question…Has anybody actually asked him why he voted No?

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM

From his spokeswoman:

Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma’s ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance….

“It interferes with the internal affairs of another country,” Mills said. “It’s just none of our business.”

Which would bring us back to his non-object on the Romanian orphan vote, which:

Urges the government of Romania to: (1) complete the processing of certain intercountry adoption cases; and (2) amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease adoption barriers.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM

“non-objection”, that should be.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

We can definitely debate the point of the resolutions, by my whole point is that he’s no hero of voting against them. He votes yes or no selectively on them. His general rule isn’t “NO” because he thinks they’re a waste of time, he’s voted for several of them.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I agree with you, and the debate should be about the resolutions, but people are killing the message because of the messenger.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM

People keep our perspective here….this is FOOTBALL! Those resolutions were not meaningless or silly!!! ;-0

Seriously, Paul runs into the same problem that any career politician runs into eventually- hypocrisy. Symbolic stand or not, the inconsistency is what matters here. Why congratulate LSU for their national championship but not express compassion over the horrific loss of life Burma? Paul picked the wrong time to make a symbolic stand.

highhopes on May 16, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I am glad someone made the point, even it it was in a hyporcritical way.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Couldn’t he have voted “present” and made the same point? To vote “no” seems a bit harsh when his symbolic gesture is nothing but posing for the cameras.

highhopes on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM

I’m no fan of Ron Paul, but I don’t see any reason to attack him on this. Yes, he may have voted on irrelevant resolutions before, but it’s tough to be 100% consistent about Ron Paul’s point. One of the big difference between philosophical conservatism and popular conservatism in the United States is an appreciation of just how tough it is to follow any set of principles. I feel as snobbish as Obama about the popular conservatives with their infantile dreams of just following a few simple ideas and everything will be ok. I would suggest reading a book of adult fiction once in your lives. The Hardy Boys just isn’t reality.

In his defense, though, a guy paranoid enough to float the idea of a new Gulf of Tonkin in the well of the House may have special reasons for opposing this latest resolution. Is the neocon annexation of Burma imminent? Assume nothing, my friends.

Ron Paul isn’t that nuts. I went to see him speak. I didn’t agree with him much, but he seemed pretty well balanced to me. I do agree that Ron Paul’s ideas about foreign policy reflect a willful ignorance of history. But I see people here with equally as insane ideas like Creationism. there are no environmental problems, gay marriage would someway injure marriage, and so forth. I’m sure I believe some crazy things too. We need to be a little less vicious about a few nutty ideas.

thuja on May 16, 2008 at 1:44 PM

ouldn’t he have voted “present” and made the same point? To vote “no” seems a bit harsh when his symbolic gesture is nothing but posing for the cameras.

highhopes on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM

His no vote was a symbolic gesture, that was nothing but posing for the camera, against a symbolic gesture that was nothing but posing for the camera?

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Why congratulate LSU for their national championship but not express compassion over the horrific loss of life Burma? Paul picked the wrong time to make a symbolic stand.

highhopes on May 16, 2008 at 1:35 PM

A profile in courage. A model of consistency. A master of priorities.

a capella on May 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Question for Paul: Is America’s dominance in Football(college and Pro) not the result of American “Empire”, thus your pointless votes for the NY Giants or Kansas Jayhawks football teams not by extension supporting the “Empire”?

also, Why are you voting to commend Govt. run schools like the University of Kansas?

jp on May 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Hey Allah,

Why don’t you actually do some research on it instead of making a false argument on why he would not have supported this amendment? Does it only send condolences? Of course if you linked to the text of the resolution I would not have to paste this. Let’s continue to point our finger in the chest of other countries that are not threats and tell them how to live with these useless resolutions that are used for justification of future actions.

This language of the resolution probably had something to do with it:

Whereas Burma’s military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

Whereas more than 30 disaster assessment teams from 18 different Nations and the United Nations have been denied permission to enter Burma by the junta;

Whereas the United States, through its Government, the Burma-American community, and its people as a whole, has already extended significant support to the people of Burma during this difficult time, including a $250,000 emergency contribution authorized by the United States Embassy in Burma to be released immediately, and $3,000,000 in additional aid relief announced on May 6, 2008, by the White House; and

Whereas a United States Agency for International Development disaster response team is positioned in neighboring Thailand: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) extends its condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis;

(2) vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;

(3) calls on Americans to provide immediate emergency assistance to cyclone victims in Burma through humanitarian agencies;

(4) expresses confidence that the people of Burma will succeed in overcoming the hardships incurred because of this tragedy;

(5) calls for the Burmese military junta to consider the well-being of its people and accept broad international assistance; and

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

The little guy is still a dwarf.

Entelechy on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Paul being a Rothbardian fool is the source of his “No” vote. His votes of “Yea” on similar measures for Egypt and Romania show atleast somewhere he realizes he’s morally in the toilet.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

You may be missing or ignoring the point made here.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM

a capella on May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Okay, I’ve read the full text. I’m curious to know what you find objectionable in it. Details please.

scatbug on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM

jp on May 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Go and read the resolutions you cited. You should see a clear difference. Look at the difference between “urges”, “requests”, and “supports” and here with “demands”. I would not see annexation but could definitely see this as another Bosnia or Somalia down the line. This language is not in line with something that expresses merely sympathy. Ron unlike most actually reads the bills before he votes on them.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Okay, I’ve read the full text. I’m curious to know what you find objectionable in it. Details please.

scatbug on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM

The resolution gets very political for what amounts to a Congressional condolence card. Maybe they should have let hallmark write the resolution.

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

scatbug on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM

This is none of our damn business seems like a justification for further action down the line. If Obama wins this is just the kind of stuff that Zbigniew Brzezinski drools over:

Whereas Burma’s military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM

a capella on May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM

No I am not missing the point:

Urges the government of Romania to: (1) complete the processing of certain intercountry adoption cases; and (2) amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease adoption barriers.

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

Urging and requesting is not the same language as DEMANDS.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Text of the Egypt Resolution Paul voted For

Summary: H.R. 795 resolves that the House of Representatives:

* “condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks on Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt and other terrorist attacks directed against Egypt;
* “expresses its condolences to the families and friends of those individuals who were killed in the attacks and expresses its sympathies to those individuals who have been injured;
* “joins with President George W. Bush in expressing the solidarity of the people and Government of the United States with the people and Government of Egypt as they recover from these cowardly and inhuman attacks; and
* “expresses its readiness to support the Egyptian authorities in their efforts to bring to justice those individuals responsible for the recent attacks in Egypt and to pursue, disrupt, undermine, and dismantle the networks which plan and carry out such attacks.”

The resolution also states a number of findings, including the following:

* “on April 24 and 26, 2006, a series of explosions at Dahab and in Northern Sinai, Egypt, planned and carried out by terrorists, resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injury of many others;”
* “the people of Egypt have been subjected to several other deadly terrorist attacks over the past years;”
* “President George W. Bush called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to extend condolences on behalf of the American people for the loss of life.”

similar resolutions condemning terrorist outfits like hezzbollah vs. Israel, who voted no on and found a moral equivalence between the two.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM

JP,

Where is the text for the other resolutions you have cited? That terrorist resolution does not condemn a country or get into a fight between countries.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 2:40 PM

His no vote was a symbolic gesture, that was nothing but posing for the camera, against a symbolic gesture that was nothing but posing for the camera?

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Link to the photo please…

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM

the hezzbollah resolution did condem them, a Islamic Terrorist outfit. Paul found a moral equivalence between hezzbollah, a common mortal enemy who wishes death to both the US and Israel(and all non-islam parts of the world) and Israel. He is morally in the toilet.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

similar resolutions condemning terrorist outfits like hezzbollah vs. Israel, who voted no on and found a moral equivalence between the two.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM

You may not like this, but it’s possible that RP sees a difference between condemning/urging and demanding. Demanding is a real policy action. Maybe he didn’t like the way it was worded. It’s certainly not the case that he “hates f***ing Burma” or anything ridiculous like that.

Again, why is everybody okay with this resolution but not the Turkey resolution?

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

the hezzbollah resolution did condem them, a Islamic Terrorist outfit. Paul found a moral equivalence between hezzbollah, a common mortal enemy who wishes death to both the US and Israel(and all non-islam parts of the world) and Israel. He is morally in the toilet.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

You keep referencing that he “found a moral equivalence” but I don’t see any quotes from you proving that he did. Please supply or desist from your redundant “toilet” comments.

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Good. Screw the Burmese AND the horse they rode in on.

RWLA on May 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Or should I say THE WAVE that they rode in on.

RWLA on May 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM

You may not like this, but it’s possible that RP sees a difference between condemning/urging and demanding. Demanding is a real policy action.

its a toothless resolution, it doesn’t make any difference how its worded.

for the moral equivalence, look up his house speech on the Israel/hezzbollah resolution. Or the repeated times of comparing the US to China and asking us “how would we feel” if China was building military bases here. Which is so mind numbinlgy dumb and ignorant of the basic issue at hand, but on top of that is flat out Moral Relativism of the worst kind.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 PM

I vote that we have a moment of silence.

That pretty much fixes everything.

TheSitRep on May 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM

It’s all in keeping with our constitutional scheme per the “Rock Chalk, Jayhawk” Clause in Article I.

Hah!

KSgop on May 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM

I applaud Paul for this. These ridiculous publicity stunts are a waste of taxpayer money and do nothing for the victims. The amount of money the US gives to foreign countries in aid and disaster relief speaks for itself. But of course H/A must slum over to the LAT for this pathetic story. Hey Allah, remember to wipe your shoes before coming back inside.

DanKenton on May 16, 2008 at 8:39 PM

These ridiculous publicity stunts are a waste of taxpayer money and do nothing for the victims.

Who, the losing teams?

Jim Treacher on May 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM